Specific conditionality (Idappaccayatā) – continue
Why DO links are called specific conditionality?
First I will try to make some simple examples:
With milk as a condition, curd arises (Without milk, we cannot make curd).
However, when all milk have turned into curd, milk ceased but curd does not cease.
In this case, if the condition ceased (no more supply of milk), curd does not cease. This is normal conditionality.
Now with this example:
With the candle’s flame as condition, candle’s light arises. (Without candle’s flame, we do not have candle’s light)
Now, when the candle’s flame ceased, candle’s light ceased.
In this case, when candle’s flame ceased, candle’s light also ceased at the same time. In other word, when the condition ceased, the effect ceased. This is specific conditionality in DO. It is that specific condition that always causes the effect.
Look at the links in DO:
Birth → Aging-and-death:
With birth as a condition, there is death (If a being is born, that being cannot avoid death).
When there is no birth then there is no death (We cannot discern the death of the being if the being is not born).
Death may require different combination of conditions from birth, accident, sickness, old age…However, only birth is the condition that always relates to death. Accident is also a condition for death, but it is not always the cause of death. Obviously, not everybody dies because of accident or old age. Therefore, birth is called the specific conditionality of death. This stability of dependent origination is that special feature of birth as the condition for death:
“Thus, bhikkhus, the actuality in this, the inerrancy, the nototherwiseness, specific conditionality: this is called dependent origination. (SN12.20)
Consciousness → Name-and-form:
With consciousness as a condition, name-and-form arises.
With the cessation of consciousness, cessation of name-and-form.
Because DO link is a specific conditionality, when a DO’s condition ceased, its effect must cease at the same time. That means, if consciousness ceased, name-and-form must cease at the same time. However, many of the current interpretations of name-and-form are about mind-and-body or a being. Therefore, they have trouble explaining the state of a living arahant or a living Buddha. If name-and-form is mind-and-body or a being, and rupa is the physical body of the being, then when consciousness ceased (because ignorance ceased → volitional formations ceased), mind-and-body must cease or the physical body must cease. However, we all know that the mind and body of the Buddha did not cease after his enlightenment.
One can argue that the mind and body do not belong to the Buddha, he no longer takes them as his body and his mind. However, that physical body arises from ignorance by DO in this understanding of namarupa; therefore, with the cessation of ignorance, that physical body must cease at the same time if we take rupa as the being’s body. The rupa that must cease is that physical body, not the relation between the being and the physical body. That’s why we said “whatever is of a nature to arise is all of a nature to pass away”. Because of this dilemma, some people may argue that dependent cessation only applies for the arahant after his final death, so they can make sense the cessation of the body of the being. However, we all know that consciousness is on and off all the time. By this understanding, the body arises and ceases all the time; therefore, it must partially ceased, not completely ceased… However, all of these explanations are wild speculations.
Moreover, some people failed to recognize the importance of the definition of nama in namarupa. The three importance components in nama are intention, attention and contact. They are there for a reason. In the Chinese’s version, the composers obviously tried to force nama as a completed mind with consciousness by defining nama as feeling, perception, saṃskāra and consciousness so it can go with the rupa or the body to form a completed being. This has created many wild interpretations of DO.
